Allergic Living » food labelshttp://allergicliving.com
The magazine for those living with food allergies, celiac disease, asthma and pollen allergies.Fri, 09 Dec 2016 01:34:52 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.3.1Demand for Sesame to Be Added to Top Allergens List Gets Louderhttp://allergicliving.com/2015/09/17/demand-for-sesame-to-be-added-to-top-allergens-list-gets-louder/
http://allergicliving.com/2015/09/17/demand-for-sesame-to-be-added-to-top-allergens-list-gets-louder/#commentsThu, 17 Sep 2015 13:55:50 +0000http://allergicliving.com/?p=37007Calls for sesame to be put on the list of top allergens are coming from legislators and the public alike. Photo: Thinkstock

The lobby to require manufacturers to label sesame as a top food allergen in the United States is gaining traction with the release of a new report that details just how difficult it is for consumers with this allergy to find safe grocery products.

On the heels of recent demands by three Senators that the FDA needs to add sesame as a ninth top allergen that must by law be clearly identified in common language on ingredients lists — this report sets out why immediate action is needed to protect between 300,000 and 500,000 Americans who have this allergy.

Prepared by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the report finds that of 19 major manufacturers contacted, only three – Kraft, General Mills, and Mondelez – label sesame on their products on a voluntary basis. The CSPI found that most food makers surveyed, representing hundreds of brands, fell into two camps: those who don’t voluntarily label but will offer information to consumers when contacted, and those who don’t voluntarily label and won’t even respond to consumer requests for sesame information. (The reason often given for the latter was that brand recipes are proprietary.)

The report urges label reform, noting that “sesame-allergic consumers are thus deprived of critical information when they buy groceries or eat outside of the home.” The seed is often listed under unfamiliar names such as “benne,” “teel,” or “tahini.” It can also be hidden in ingredient lists under the terms “natural flavorings,” “seasoning,” or “spices.”

CSPI, which has been working with allergy advocates such as Nevada attorney Homa Woodrum, alongside thousands of parents and leading allergists over the last two years, filed a Citizen Petition in November 2014, requesting that sesame seeds and sesame products be regulated similarly to other major allergens.

In June, three U.S. Senators joined the cause, helping to put pressure on the FDA to revise the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA), passed in 2004. In August, the FDA responded to Connecticut Sen. Christopher Murphy’s letter stating that it would “carefully review all comments it has received on the petition and related information.”

For advocates, that means there is more work to be done. “We’re encouraging the FDA to act swiftly because of the public safety and health concerns,” Woodrum says. “The unfortunate thing is that there’s no timeline on their end,” and she adds, “they have taken years to answer other citizen petitions. The hope is that, with public support, they will make sesame labeling a priority.”

Next: Sesame allergy a growing health concern

]]>http://allergicliving.com/2015/09/17/demand-for-sesame-to-be-added-to-top-allergens-list-gets-louder/feed/0New Policy on “May Contain” Labels On Its Wayhttp://allergicliving.com/2011/09/08/new-policy-on-may-contain-labels-on-its-way/
http://allergicliving.com/2011/09/08/new-policy-on-may-contain-labels-on-its-way/#commentsThu, 08 Sep 2011 19:35:54 +0000http://allergicliving.com/?p=11535Health Canada has finally released the findings of its public consultation about precautionary labeling of allergens.

From 2009 to 2010, Health Canada consulted with key stakeholders, including the Canadian public, on policy options to improve the use of precautionary labeling (also known as “may contain” labelling) in identifying the potential presence of allergens in packaged foods. Currently, “may contain” labeling is used on a voluntary basis in Canada, as well as in many other countries, including the U.S.

The proposed options for improving the policy ranged from keeping “may contain” statements voluntary to making them mandatory by law.

The findings of the consultation:

None of the proposed options for the policy renewal reached a clear consensus among stakeholders. Perhaps not surprisingly, individuals voiced a preference for fully regulating “may contain” labels, whereas the food industry would prefer not to be required to use the precautionary labels.

The majority (65% of all participants) felt comfortable with the “mixed voluntary / regulatory approach.” This approach would mean that manufacturers and importers would not be required to use “may contain” labeling, but new laws would regulate the way the labels are used when a company chooses to use them.

The concerns expressed towards non-regulated approached were largely related to the potential for misinterpretation of the absence of precautionary statements (i.e. not knowing if safety has been assessed when no precautionary statement is present). That said, the non-regulated approaches were identified as less costly and their implementation was viewed as being achievable in a shorter period of time, as well as providing more flexibility to the food industry.

The main concerns expressed towards regulated approaches were related to the lack of allergen thresholds, the sense of false security that the mandatory nature of a measure could produce among individuals with food allergies, and the time and costs associated with the implementation of mandatory measures across the industry. The main advantages identified for the regulated approaches were both the accountability of the food industry and the provision of a fair and common market being assured by imposing the same standards across Canada and for domestic and imported foods.

Participants said the biggest issues that concern them are:
1) the overuse of allergen precautionary statements (for example, precautionary statements believed to be used when there is no real risk, for legal protection, etc.)
2) consumer difficulty in interpreting the level of risk posed by a product using these statements (or example, when precautionary statements are absent, when they express different level of risks or because of too many different wordings, etc.).

80% of respondents to the online consultation indicated that their single biggest issue is not knowing if safety has been assessed when no precautionary statement is present.

To read the full summary of Health Canada’s public consultations about precautionary food allergen labeling, click here.

1999 Common Allergenic Foods and Their Labelling in Canada-A Review, written by Zarkadas, et al. published in the Canadian Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 1999:4:118-141.

2003 A Business Impact Test (BIT) commissioned by HC and CFIA to consult with industry on potential costs of implementing allergen labelling.

February 19, 2004 HC issued letter announcing: “Proposed Regulatory Amendments to Enhance Labelling of Priority Allergens in Foods”, to be published in Canada Gazette, Part 1, in mid-2004 and asking for stakeholder feedback.

September 27, 2004 Letter from HC to stakeholders that fining agents derived from milk, egg and fish used in standardized alcoholic beverages will be exempt from label declaration, but that labelling of priority allergens, gluten and sulphite would apply to beer and wine.

June 2008 Allergy and celiac organizations support write-in campaign, led by Allergic Living Magazine, urging the federal government to pass food labelling regulations drafted by HC. Over 4000 letters sent to the Prime Minister.

July 26, 2008Amendments to Food and Drug Regulations for allergen, gluten and sulphite labelling, were published in Canada Gazette, Part 1, with a 120 day consultation period.

July 26, 2008 Minister of Health Tony Clement announced: “The Government of Canada is taking action to protect the health and wellbeing of Canadians with food allergies and celiac disease…these new proposed labelling requirements will provide Canadians with the information they need to manage their own allergies, and give parents greater assurance about the food they give their children who may have allergies.”

July-November 2008 Over 140 comments submitted from the food and beverage industry, consumers, patient groups, health professionals, and other governments, for review by HC.

June 2010 Health Canada’s Modifications to Schedule 1220 Regulation Amendments announced: Addition of mustard seed to list of allergens “Allergy and Intolerance Information- Contains:” statement to be changed to “Contains:” (same as USA). Fining agents derived from eggs, fish or milk used in the production of alcoholic beverages will no longer be exempt from labelling. Transition period for industry changed from 12 to 18 months.

October 2010-February 2011 Public awareness campaign begun by allergy and celiac associations urging government to pass food labeling regulations. To date, over 8500 letters/emails sent to the Prime Minister in support of regulations.

December 16, 2010 Minister of Health Aglukkaq met with Anaphylaxis Canada representatives and provided assurance that regulations would pass in 2011.

January 2011 Minister of Health Aglukkaq issued letters to Anaphylaxis Canada, Canadian Celiac Association and Dietitians of Canada assuring them that regulations are top priority and will be passed in early 2011.

February 1, 2011 Letters from Dietitians of Canada urged the Prime Minister to pass regulations immediately.

February 2, 2011 Open letter to Prime Minister, Minister of Health, Minister of Industry, President of the Treasury Board & Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Minister of Agriculture, urging government to pass regulations immediately. Letter was signed by: